Is this woman a transphobe?

[Border Reiver]

With these examples, you don't quite make the point you think you do.

It's almost like the people you're talking to have thought about these issues before.

I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.

Have a gold star.

 

[Athos]

Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.

We're just going round and round, now. But, in short context; there's a very different dynamic between white people asserting rights against black people, and females asserting rights against males.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.

Try thinking about something else for a bit.

 

[Border Reiver]

Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.

Twitter recognises hate speech (unlawful denial of rights) whether race or trans gender as unacceptable on its platform.

 

[Border Reiver]

Try thinking about something else for a bit.

Try contributing to debate rather than engaging in abuse.

 

[Border Reiver]

We're just going round and round, now. But, in short context; there's a very different dynamic between white people asserting rights against black people, and females asserting rights against males.

In your opinion. Transgender womenare legally female and not male for most matters.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Twitter recognises hate speech (unlawful denial of rights) whether race or trans gender as unacceptable on its platform.

Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.

 

[Border Reiver]

Can you quote the bit about 'denying the established legal rights of trans women'? All I see is this:

Because later she later qualifies it to mean that it excludes trans women from access to single sex spaces.

Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.

Denying the established rights of trans women to access certain spaces. Try suggesting denying such rights to other protected groups.

 

[smokedout]

Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?

It really depends what you mean here. If you mean can those born physically female, those who identify and live as women, and those who are socially coded as women have their own spaces then the answer is yes, in fact that is what has happened for a hundred years or more. There is growing evidence of trans people living in stealth in Victorian times and beyond, it's near certain they would have used single sex spaces (as much as they existed) inline with their aquired gender - to do anything else would have been far too dangerous. So this is the system we have had for pretty much as long as single sex spaces have existed. It is a system which runs on pretty basic common sense, with a few minor legal safeguards such as the single sex exemption, and which has shown itself to be workable and safe over the decades. It may not be perfect, masculine appearing women sometimes get harassed, some people might feel nervous around a masculine appearing woman or trans woman, and things like single sex toilets can cause problems for parents and people with carers, but it's what we've had for a long time and there doesn't seem any real social appetite outside of a few quarters to change that.

If you mean can women (or men) have their own spaces in which they can guarantee that every single persons who uses it is XX/XY or has the correct genitals then that is probably socially impossible without horrifyingly draconion measures. Firstly which do you want, chromosones, genitals or both? And how do you check? Which of the constellation of biological sex indicators and social signifiers should be required to enter a single sex space without harassment? Could we no longer have male doctors, porters and visitors in women's hospital wards in case someone was made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a male? Should male healthcare workers, guards and maintenance staff be kept out of women's prisons? Should every single sex space have the same assesssment criteria you might have in a refuge (and even now that assessment cannot be fully guaranteed). And if this is the case, and we're all carrying sex ID cards, then why stop there? Why not keep out people with certain criminal records? Or from certain socially marginalised groups? What kind of society would this look like, what other social attitudes and pressures might emerge around gender and presentation? How would this impact on trans, intersex or gender nonconforming people? Perhaps you'd need to ban crossdressing, just in case, it's been illegal in societies before and still is in a few countries. Perhaps there would be calls for segregation to be further extended to other spheres.

The extreme conservative and religious right is pushing this so hard they are prepared to drop every principle they possess and work with lesbians and pro-choice feminists to achieve it. Why is that? If these aims were ever brought to fruition would they be implemented by a radical feminist government or something very different? Is this really the society people want? The reason there is a split in feminism over this is not because younger feminists have been brainwashed by the woke into 'being kind', or even just that there is a social shift towards trans acceptance but because some have the imagination to see where these demands might lead.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because later she qualifie

Denying the established rights of trans women to access certain spaces. Try suggesting denying such rights to other protected groups.

That's another 'no', then?

 

[kabbes]

Try contributing to debate rather than engaging in abuse.

Well there’s irony

 

[smokedout]

Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.

I think twitter should ban boring men who endlessly philosophise about things which don't affect them, that they have no lived experience of and don't actually even know that much about.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think twitter should ban boring men who endlessly philosophise about thing which don't affect them, that they have no lived experience of and don't actually even know that much about.

If that's aimed at me, you're making some massive fucking assumptions. Just because I don't share personal stuff doesn't mean it isn't there. Fuck off.

 

[Border Reiver]

It really depends what you mean here. If you mean can those born physically female, those who identify and live as women, and those who are socially coded as women have their own spaces then the answer is yes, in fact that's is what has happened for a hundred years or more. There is growing evidence of trans people living in stealth in Victorian times and beyond, it's near certain they had have used single sex spaces (as much as they existed) inline with their aquired gender - to do anything else would have been far too dangerous. So this is the system we have had for pretty much as long as single sex spaces have existed. It is a system which runs on pretty basic common sense, with a few minor legal safeguards such as the single sex exemption, and which has shown itself to be workable and safe over the decades. It may not be perfect, masculine appearing women sometimes get harassed, some people might feel nervous around a masculine appearing woman or trans woman, and things like single sex toilets can cause problems for parents and people with carers, but it's what we've had for a long time and there doesn't seem any real social appetite outside of a few quarters to change that.

If you mean can women (or men) have their own spaces in which they can guarantee that every single persons who uses it is XX/XY or has the correct genitals then that is probably socially impossible without horrifyingly draconion measures. Firstly which do you want, chromosones, genitals or both? And how do you check? Which of the constellation of biological sex indicators and social signifiers should be required to enter a single sex space without harassment? Could we no longer have male doctors, porters and visitors in women's hospital wards in case someone was made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a male? Should male healthcare workers, guards and maintenance staff be kept out of women's prisons? Should every single sex space have the same assesssment criteria you might have in a refuge, and even now that assessment cannot be fully guaranteed. And if this is the case, and we're all carrying sex ID cards, then why stop there? Why not keep out people with certain criminal records? Or from certain socially marginalised groups? What kind of society would this look like, what other social attitudes might and pressures might emerge around gender and presentation? How would this impact on trans, intersex or gender nonconforming people? Perhaps you'd need to ban crossdressing, just in case, it's been illegal in societies before and still is in a few countries. Perhaps there would be calls for segregation to be further extended to other spheres.

The extreme conservative and religious right is pushing this so hard they are prepared to drop every principle they possess and work with lesbians and pro-choice feminists to achieve it. Why is that? If these aims were ever brought to fruition would they be implemented by a radical feminist government or something very different? Is this really the society people want? The reason there is a split in feminism over this is not because younger feminists have been brainwashed by the woke into 'being kind', or even just that there is a social shift towards trans acceptance but because some have the imagination to see where some of these demands might lead.

Such a clear explanation. Thanks.

 

[Border Reiver]

Try thinking about something else for a bit.

What, and engage in diversion like many posts here? The question at point is twitter's reaction.

 

[smokedout]

dp

 

[two sheds]

Bit of a side question, but are Twitter and Facebook so strict on banning posters who come out with overtly racist and sexist language? I thought that was a major part of the problem that they seem perfectly happy to allow such behaviour.

 

[Shechemite]

More broadly, this is what drives so many people mental - needing to self censor to a degree that is (arguably) unnecessary, whilst having to put up with obvious bigotry, dependent on the ‘identities’ being discussed.

 

[Athos]

In your opinion. Transgender womenare legally female and not male for most matters.

Ignoring the fact that laws can and do change, if you can't see a difference in the social dynamics of those situations (regardless of the strict legal position), then I think you'll struggle to empathise with a lot of women on this issue, which will impede progress towards an amicable solution (though you may be fine with that - happy to simply impose your will on them).

 

[Edie]

So I cannot, as a natural born woman say that I want single sex prison estate, hospital wards, or domestic violence refuges?

That, according to Border Reiver , is hate speech analogous to racism. Should be closed down, and reported to my employer and the police.

Well, as the only natural born woman posting over the previous few pages, I just like to say fuck that In the wake of Sarah Everard and the national upswell of feeling about male sexual assault, fuck that. We are entitled to protection. All the best Mr Reiver and all you other men who think we don’t get a say, but I couldn’t gaf

 

[Border Reiver]

Ignoring the fact that laws can and do change, if you can't see a difference in the social dynamics of those situations (regardless of the strict legal position), then I think you'll struggle to empathise with a lot of women on this issue, which will impede progress towards an amicable solution (though you may be fine with that - happy to simply impose your will on them).

You are wilfuly ignoring the question. "Why has Twitter banned the person?". She was banned for denying rights in a hateful manner. It is their decision his much hate speech they accommodate.

Question answered.

 

[Border Reiver]

So I cannot, as a natural born woman say that I want single sex prison estate, hospital wards, or domestic violence refuges?

That, according to Border Reiver , is hate speech analogous to racism.

Well, as the only natural born woman posting over the previous few pages, I just like to say fuck that In the wake of Sarah Everard and the national upswell of feeling about male sexual assault, fuck that. We are entitled to protection. All the best Mr Reiver and all you other men who think we don’t get a say, but I couldn’t gaf

You can advocate for it neutrally. She crossed that line by denying established current rights in a manner Twitter disapproved of.

 

[smokedout]

Bit of a side question, but are Twitter and Facebook so strict on banning posters who come out with overtly racist and sexist language? I thought that was a major part of the problem that they seem perfectly happy to allow such behaviour.

It would be interesting to see an analysis but my guess is that racists and men's rights activists are just as convinced that there is a social media plot to silence 'reasonable debate' as some gender critical activists are.

 

[Edie]

You can advocate for it neutrally. She crossed that line by denying established current rights in a manner Twitter disapproved of.

I can and will advocate it any way I choose Mr Reiver.

 

[Athos]

You are wilfuly ignoring the question. "Why has Twitter banned the person?". She was banned for denying rights in a hateful manner. It is their decision his much hate speech they accommodate.

Question answered.

I disagree with your answer to the question; I think it's grossly over-simplistic, and it overlooks much of the important context (not least of all the inconsistentcy with which Twitter applies its own rules). Not that there's any reason I should answer that question, anyway - "wilfuly ignoring" lol!

 

[Athos]

I can and will advocate it any way I choose Mr Reiver.

You'll do as you're told, woman.

 

[Border Reiver]

Basically Twitter regards denial of gender identity (as she does) is morally equivalent to denying people who do change their gender identity to their lawful rights.

As I said above, when you are trying to separate views on the question is "If an intact male with a GRC as a woman have full right of access to most female spaces". YES is acceptable. NO is hateful.

 

[Border Reiver]

I disagree with your answer to the question; I think it's grossly over-simplistic, and it overlooks much of the important context (not least of all the inconsistentcy with which Twitter applies its own rules). Not that there's any reason I should answer that question, anyway - "wilfuly ignoring" lol!

I suspect that concludes our conversation. I have no more to add that will convince you. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

 

[Edie]

Basically Twitter regards denial of gender identity (as she does) is morally equivalent to denying people who do change their gender identity to their lawful rights.

As I said above, when you are trying to separate views on the question is "If an intact male with a GRC as a woman have full right of access to most female spaces". YES is acceptable. NO is hateful.

I reject it is hateful.